The city can prudently spend as much as $1.4 million less on clearing flood channels during the fiscal year that begins July 1 because staff has become more efficient at obtaining environmental permits and completing the work, said Kris McFadden, director of the city’s Transportation and Storm Water Department.

"We're getting better at doing this work, and after refining some of these numbers we're able to do it cheaper than we had initially been projected to do," said McFadden, noting that the city has significantly ramped up channel-clearing efforts in recent years. "We're starting to see economies of scale."

City Councilman David Alvarez, however, said the city should consider using those savings to increase the number of channels it clears each year, instead of using the money to close a projected $81 million gap in next year’s proposed $1.4 billion budget.

"Does this mean that maybe we should look at the projects we were going to do in two years and do those now?" asked Alvarez. "If you find efficiencies you always want to do more. It's not like we're the shining example of storm channel maintenance in the country — we're really behind."

McFadden stressed that the cuts won’t reduce city staffing or money spent on channel-clearing projects, just consulting fees the city has been paying to outsiders to help navigate through the notoriously complicated approvals for the projects.

Strict environmental regulations are in place for such projects to prevent local agencies from ripping out sensitive habitat in the name of flood prevention.

McFadden said the city can survive next fiscal year without the consultants because it’s entering the fifth year of its first “master maintenance program,” a more comprehensive and aggressive approach to keeping the city’s roughly 120 channels clear of clogs.

"We have a lot more information now that makes the regulatory agencies much more comfortable with the work that we're doing," he said.

While those agencies, which include the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the state Regional Water Quality Control Board, haven’t eliminated red tape or eased regulations, McFadden said they have become more confident in San Diego’s efforts.

"We've developed really good relationships with them," he said. "We've seen some streamlining when it comes to permitting — we know what information we need. We're actually able to get it right the first time and save some time and money."

McFadden also noted that the new fiscal year – fiscal 2018 — will be the first time San Diego has fulfilled a long-term ambition of clearing six channels per year, up from the typical two or three per year.

Faulconer increased funding for channel clearing in the fiscal 2017 budget to make that possible, but the city couldn’t increase the number of channels cleared until a year later because the permits take time to secure, McFadden said.

In addition, the city’s channels are arguably in their best shape overall in many years because the city managed to rapidly clear 30 channels during the winter of 2015-16 when the regulatory agencies sharply expedited permits in the face of an El Nino threat of heavy rains.

Those rains never materialized, but McFadden said the work proved to be beneficial because the city was far more prepared for the heavy rains that came this winter.

Of the 30 channels the city cleared, only nine failed to adequately handle the rains, despite it being the rainiest winter in the region in 13 years.

Councilman Alvarez hailed those efforts, but said it is clear there is still flood risk in many parts of San Diego.

"I don't think anybody can tell you with a straight face that if we spend what's proposed in the budget today we guarantee that there's minimal risk if there's rain," he said. "If there is significant rain next year, there remain areas that are at risk for flooding. We should minimize that to the furthest extent possible."

Alvarez said he hopes to question city officials about the flood channel cuts during budget hearings scheduled for May 3 through 10.

"Without having seen their actual plan, it's hard to dissect that we are actually doing the right work," he said.

McFadden noted that not all of the $1.4 million cut listed in the budget would apply to channel clearing efforts.

The proposed budget includes a $1.1 million cut to channel and environmental permit consulting services, which is about 16 percent of the channel and environmental permitting budget.

But McFadden said some of that money would have covered other environmental permits his department would have sought for projects unrelated to flood-channel maintenance.

The budget would also cut $340,000 from efforts to correctly identify flood control channels requiring maintenance services, a 30 percent reduction. That cut would apply entirely to flood channel efforts.

Other cuts in the proposed budget include elimination of more than 60 jobs, slashing arts funding and changing reserve policies so that the city can maintain recent spending hikes on street repair, neighborhood amenities and homelessness.

A final version is expected to be approved by the City Council in June.